Bad news for Democrats: Stocks record high - Employment 1/2 Century High

yremark "snark". What do you call your remark "for what purpose - to look good ?"

You say the military should be smaller? What size? How did you come up with that size? Not liking the military and saying it should be smaller is not adequate.

 

Snark = see your remarks in bold. I have gave specific details in my posts in relation to "size" with respect to military spend.

The Total military spend in 2000 was 300 Billion. Under Bush this spend increased to over 900 Billion and under Obama surpassed 1 Trillion.

Had we maintained this spend (as we already had by far the biggest and best military on the planet - albeit for what purpose is a question but regardless - it was massive and overwhelming) - increasing with inflation - we could have diverted 500 Billion/year x 16 years = 8 Trillion dollars to infrastructure, technology, ramping up our economy to compete in the third millennium.

Instead we threw this money down the toilet fighting unnecessary wars with no return on investment - to pad the pockets if the international financiers and Oligarchs who own the Military Industrial Complex.

The interest on our debt is 450 Billion a year (again to pad the pockets of same) x 16 years = 7 Trillion dollars must of which is a function of the military spend and other things which serve to pad pockets of the same folks.

So tell me - how did chasing a few terrorists around the globe justify sacrificing the economic future of our children ?

Where is this huge army massing on our borders threatening us to the point where we needed to spend this much and forego our economic future.

 

You quoted a bunch of numbers. What size should it be and why? How does you size match up with threats?

 

It should be big enough to defend the homeland. Sorry to confuse you with numbers and facts and thanks for not answering the questions put to you in my post and not saying anything to justify your claim.

 

not bad news, means Obama's economy is still going strong

Trump is setting record debts though with his huge tax cuts for the corps, corps are sending jobs overseas in record numbers under Trump, so may be short lived, we will see

 

Good News for Democrats:

Trump is a Raging IMBECILE.

 

Leading isn't having the most weapons unless of course one thinks that threatening others with violence is leading. The military is there to defend America from it's enemies not as a way to force others to follow America's policies.

 

Another good piece of evidence that China is no possible military threat to us at least in a conventionsl war.

 

You claim the military is too big. Yet you have no size it should be. You would be critical no matter what size it is. By the way, I never said the military should be bigger. Only that it was in bad shape because of the Obama years.

 

That link shows all the other armies. The claim was the US spends more than the next eight countries. However, if you look at the other countries,we are not as big as the next eight.

If our military was weaker, a number of other countries would be a threat. Why would it be a conventional war?

 

Come in just after 23 1/2 minutes regarding the desperation of the Democrats.


And, in case you know how to read a schart. Notice where it started in 2008
https://money.cnn.com/gallery/news/economy/2017/01/06/obama-economy-10-charts-final/5.html

 

I have stated what size it should be. You are just being obtuse. If you think the military should not be bigger - then you should not be voting for Trump.

You don't actually want to discuss this topic.

 

How many ships, airplanes, men on the ground, missiles? What is the threat and how much of each is required to meet it? That is the kind of information needed.

I served twenty years in the military. We were always short handed for our mission. I enjoyed my service, but it wears on the serviceman and the family because of the pressure and the hours.

 

The US has reached an agreement with Canada and Mexico. The stock market is off to another roaring start.

 

We are short handed because we have something like 800 bases around the world - way too many planes and ships - and so on.

The threat is the central point. There is no conventional "threat" to the homeland from any major power. Why ? because they do not want to be nuked into oblivion.

We do not need 18 aircraft carriers to fight a few bands of terrorists. How many aircraft carriers does Russia have ? One. The fact of the matter is that these floating cities of metal have been made largely obsolete for decades against modern missile technology.

We are not being indited for war crimes in Afghanistan - what is the purpose of being there 17 years and what has been accomplished ?
The war in Iraq was completely unnecessary and did little but turn that nation into a Jihadist wonderland.
The action in Libya turned that nation into a Jihadist wonderland.

We are complicit in war crimes in Yemen. Arming and Funding Al Qaeda and the Islamist Jihadists that went on to form the modern incarnation of ISIS - is responsible for the worst humanitarian crisis so far this decade .. 500,000 dead and counting, and the refugee crisis that is further spreading the plague of Islamist extremism all over the world.

I thought we were supposed to be fighting Al Qaeda ?

 

Stock zooming up again to day thanks to President Trump.

 

First get your facts right. We do not have 800 bases around the world. We have 800 facilities which include bases, offices, recruiting stations, radar stations, embassies, etc

Do you think we would have no threat if we had a smaller military?

Stop the stupid stuff. We don't use aircraft carriers to fight "a few bands of terrorists". We could become "Fortress America" but it will be a worse world after we do. All in all, I believe we do more good than harm. I am sure you disagree on this. Like I have said before, this is a useless argument that will go nowhere.

Personally I think we could do without a lot of foreign intervention. Talk to our government. Not to the military. We carry out those missions given to us.

I did not witness any war crimes in my twenty years including Vietnam. I doubt that you did either. It is based on biased reports that want to bad mouth the US.

My last comments on the subject.

 

What a joke of a post. The war crimes in Vietnam are well documented - that you did not witness them does not mean they did not happen.
The war crimes in Yemen are also well documented and we fight on the same side as Al Qaeda.

That you think we are doing more good than bad by arming Al Qaeda and other Islamist Jihadists of the same ilk in Syria is based on what ?

I never said we used aircraft carriers to fight terrorists .. nice straw man.

I answered your "do you think we would have no threat with smaller military" question in the post you are responding to. What part of "Nukes are a deterrent" do you not understand ?


Good grief what mindless koolaid gulping gibberish.

 

Mindless gibberish as ususal